During an interview at the DLD Conference in Munich on Monday, Nest CEO Tony Fadell said that the company will make all future privacy policy changes under Google opt-in and that it will be transparent about those changes. Fadell's statement follows Google’s acquisition of Nest, a smart home products company, for $3.2 billion, which has raised some questions about how Google might put the company—and its data—to use.

Further Reading

“The data we collect is all about our products and improving them,” Fadell said, reiterating a statement he issued about the company's smart thermostat and smart smoke detector following the announcement of the acquisition. “If there were ever any changes whatsoever, we will be sure to be transparent about it, number one, and number two, for you to opt in to it.”

The “number one” promise is consistent with Google’s approach to changing privacy policies, particularly in the last couple of years. When Google unified the privacy policies of all its products so that it could share data between services (for instance, Gmail and Google Calendar), it placed a notification bar on its homepage.

During his interview, Fadell tended to focus on the present when addressing Nest’s privacy policy, saying, “At this point there are no changes.” But current privacy policies are a poor predictor of future privacy policies.

Consider the evolution of privacy and data use policies at Facebook. At first, Facebook was completely siloed from search engines, and it was possible for users to be completely invisible to other users who were not their friends. Now Facebook is jockeying to come up as search engine results. All users’ names and photos are publicly accessible, and everyone must be searchable. Not only that, but Facebook data is now sold to third parties, often for marketing purposes.

An OG Nest owner who bought one of the thermostats when Nest wasn’t part of the Google Island archipelago may well be entitled to opt in to privacy changes. But it’s unclear how the promise for opt-in privacy changes might affect future customers.

If Nest changes its privacy tune in the near future so that, for instance, anonymized data may be shared with third parties like marketers, all users who buy a Nest after the fact will be automatically “opted in” to that data-sharing climate. It seems less likely that any opt-in to share data about Nest with anyone but Nest would be preserved for all future customers.

Fadell’s statements may allay the concerns of current Nest owners who have worried about the potential for their thermostats and smoke detectors to turn into the tentacles of Big Brother. But Nest's privacy commitments speak only to Nest as it stands now; the Nest of the future still has the potential to operate differently.

Laurie Segall, the CNNMoney technology correspondent who interviewed Fadell, tried to clarify that Nest would not start feeding her ads about sweaters because it knows she is cold all the time. “Not that I know of, no,” said Fadell, smiling.

“Can you promise?” Segall asked.

Fadell laughed. “If we ever change it, I’ll let you know.”

Promoted Comments

As a current Nest owner, it's not that I trusted Nest - trusting any corporation is a recipe for disaster. It's that, since they were only getting money from me for their devices, they had a clear interest in keeping me happy if they wanted to sell me future devices and maintain positive PR. Google, on the other hand, has shown a willingness-to-the-point-of-seeming-eagerness to alienate small groups of users in order to pursue an overall agenda.

I was a very happy Nest customer until last week. For now, I'll keep my thermostat and smoke detector, and watch what Nest does very carefully. But I won't be buying any new products from them in the next few years, and I can't recommend their products as I have in the past.

Of all privacy challenges..i find it surprising that people are placing so much importance on Nest.

Allow me to paint you a picture: NEST lets Google know how many people are in my home (motion sensor on Protect), when we're active in the home (Protect and Thermostat), when we come and go (via settings in the app), and how much power we're using to heat or cool our home.

This information helps Google complete their picture of me, a picture they're selling to everyone and anyone. A picture I do not want sold.

People are placing so much importance on NEST because it takes Google from the realm of capturing my interests and purchases and puts it directly in my home, capturing information about how I live my life. Many users, tired of Google's growing reach, have decided enough is enough and we're drawing the line here.

He's sort of missing the point though. I shouldn't have to "opt in" or suddenly find my Nest thermostat obsolete. It's one thing to tell me to just quit using gmail or youtube if I don't agree with a privacy change. It's quite another to subject things about my *home* to instant replacement.

Why would I buy any product to install on my home if I have to worry about keeping up with EULA and TOS agreement "revisions"? The contract in effect when I bought the product should not be altered by Nest/google at their whim. Period.

Life is hard enough in trying to determine the privacy policies and implications of the things I'm currently purchasing or contemplating. Ain't nobody got time to constantly review and keep up with unilateral contract changes by counterparties to all *past* purchases.

Which is exactly why I'm not interested in any "smart" appliance. At any moment the terms could change to something like "all your base are belong to us" and my only recourse would be to buy a replacement from another company and hope they don't do the same thing tomorrow.

There's also the matter of smart devices that are abandoned by their manufacturers. What happens when my appliance with an expected lifespan of 20 years stops being supported after 4? Do I continue to use it and run the risk that someone will use my un-patched device to hack into my LAN? Or do all durable goods become disposable ones?

266 posts | registered Jan 12, 2007

Casey Johnston
Casey Johnston is the former Culture Editor at Ars Technica, and now does the occasional freelance story. She graduated from Columbia University with a degree in Applied Physics. Twitter@caseyjohnston

For those of you concerned about Google's all-knowing power: recently YouTube has been serving up Spanish-language ads to me...I don't speak a fucking lick of Spanish. I think I've managed to trick Google, but I don't know how I did it.

Google will create a voice operated version of Nest. With this, it can monitor your conversations even without your permission.

Isn't this going to happen anyway?

I mean, I get the privacy implications of networked digital devices. Fire burns. But like fire and agriculture what's going on right now will change many things, it will create new potential and will make some old freedoms obsolete. There's no way around that, there's no gain without risk.

But trying to limit the privacy problems of all this by hating companies offering devices and services is futile. What we need is regulations and laws to limit usage of data.

But I'm pretty sure that at some point in the future we will talk just into the empty air and fully expect some global data network to listen and answer.

And: Tyranny doesn't need much of surveillance, just look at everything that happened and still happens globally and all through history and you will easily see that. On the other hand, the most perfect surveillance states (like East Germany) just went bust as soon as the people were fed up with it and all the surveillance didn't make any difference at that point.

So, could we please stop to condemn technology and companies trying to make data work by networking and analyzing it?

But maybe all this angst and cowardice is just an indication that the future is coming and more and more people start to realize that and are shouting at it. I'm pretty sure that among the hunters and gatherers back then it was exactly the same when agriculture took off. "What, living in houses and having three meals a day instead of foraging whereever I want? I want total FREEDOM!!!" (While most people very much preferred not having to starve in the winter and live comfortable lives and realized quickly that for all the theoretical freedoms they had to give up they got a whole lot of new freedoms that were very useful every day).

Sorry for the rant. I'm not a fan of Google at all, but I'll rather risk something, thank you very much. Grow some balls. If you want to fight despotism this will help you more than keeping Google out of your heating systems anyway.

And what is privacy? Everywhere you go has video cameras. Every bank you deal with knows your salary, what you buy, where you buy it, how old you are, and if they haven't sold that information to someone, your cell carrier, car dealership, grocery store, cable company, and microsoft have and they know all about "you"

And "you" is a statistically insignificant part of a whole that makes up a block of people that advertisers buy in bulk to send out messages to that are largely ignored by 99.8% of the people they are trying to speak to.

They've all sold that to the NSA. So I guess we shouldn't start trying to stop this somewhere and instead say "who cares"?

There's a big difference between someone spying on me and listening to my calls and knowing that my wife gets cold at 10PM.

That you know about. Have you not been paying attention to just how deep that shit has been going?

I already have my tin-foil hat on.

I'm just saying that google paid 3.2 billion dollars for Nest. Surely a company that's built around data gathering wouldn't pay for it and not use it for something, no? Having the CEO of the company that was bought saying Google won't mess about with it collected data sounds a bit strange doesn't it? Google wouldn't pay 3.2 billion dollars for a company that gathers data about your home and not use it for something.

You're correct, but we're all just making assumptions about what Google's plans are relative to Nest. What if the acquisition was intended to increase the performance of their server farms? Integrate somehow with their recent acquisitions in robotics, or to further their progress on autonomous vehicles? Yes, 99% of what Google does today is advertising, but they have a ton of money to throw around to do things simply because Larry, Eric, and Sergei think they might be the next big thing, or just maybe they might be cool...

Google often buys companies with the main purpose being to acquire the talent as much, if not more, than their product.If Nest is a near perfect product, as several posters have implied by saying there is no way it could be improved, this seems like a pretty reasonable reason to acquire the company.

Maybe, but it seems a bit weird that the CEO is saying that Google won't do what Google does. That being using acquired information to add to their database on information about people. Nest only really lines up with their normal business in that it collects data about the user and adjusts accordingly. It's not a stretch to think that they'd want this data for some purpose, and that they'll take advantage of it somehow. It's true that we have no idea what they'll use it for, but selling thermostats doesn't really seem like a business Google would get into just on selling a thermostat. The robotics purchase makes sense because they do mapping, it could lead to a self driving car that already has a massive maps database. But purchasing a company that changes the setting on a heating and cooling system doesn't really make sense unless they want that data to compare with data they already have for some unknown purpose, or they want to own the system that they designed to do so and use it for their own purposes. Either way it's really strange that the CEO would stress that Google absolutely won't do what Google always does, collect information that is specific to the end user.

Did it occur to you that maybe Google wants in on home automation to go along with its Fiber networks and Google Green initiatives? My security system and thermostat are controlled through the TimeWarner Intelligent Home service I have, why does it seem so asinine for Google to also invest into home automation to tie in with products and services it currently offers?

You've just proven my point. Google WILL use this data to tie into everything else they have. Tony Fadell says they won't. Google doesn't buy things and then not use them in conjunction with what they already have. The issue is that Nest owners didn't want Google to have their info, they have it anyway, and now the CEO is saying their info won't be used with the rest of Google. You're saying it will be, and I'm saying the CEO is speaking bullshit.

You're being completely disingenuous here. The whole, entire discussion has been that Google will rapidly incorporate this theoretical wealth of personal data available from Nest and start using that to further target ads. Leachpunk says that it might be a strategic plan to integrate Nest -- hardware and software -- into other, non-advertising projects that Google's involved in -- Google Fiber and Google Green. You respond with 1) "Leachpunk isn't answering my question" and 2) See! I'm right! Integrating the Nest hardware and software into Google Green or Google Fiber (or autonomous cars, or server farm environment controls, etc.) is exactly what we're talking about!

Only it isn't. You moved the goalposts when someone posited something other than what you wanted to argue about.

Sure, Motorola. And that was for a lot more money and is particularly relevant because it's also a hardware-producing company. All users got were phones that had less bloatware and actually got updates on time.

They bought them for patents, not hardware.

How do you know that's different from Nest? What else do you think made Nest worth $3.2B?

It is not opt-in, it is opt-out. I have Samsung S3 and it came with the google stuff pre-installed with location services turned on. Besides a lot of the "opt-in" is bs. You sign into your gmail account say, and that includes opting in for something 99% of users are not aware of. Hardly opt-in. Wouldn't hold up under any other circumstances. Besides the location services was on prior to me signing in to gmail.

Nope, you have to explicity enable Location Services when you're initially setting up your phone. On top of that, you don't get Google Now stuff unless you pick the "I'm In" button from the Google Search app. That's hardly "Opt-Out".

Nope, you have to explicity enable Location Services when you're initially setting up your phone. On top of that, you don't get Google Now stuff unless you pick the "I'm In" button from the Google Search app. That's hardly "Opt-Out".

Could it be set up differently in Canada? Or perhaps the provider has that set up? Or an update perhaps. I just started getting messages telling me how far I was from home (which was weird because they guessed my home was my gf's). Google maps was pre-installed and located me from the get-go. I then turned off location services. On an aside I find my phone changes random things on me occasionally such as ring-tone and keyboard settings.

I do not recall seeing an "I'm In" button (I have a Samsung Galaxy S3).

And don't you find a lot of these ToC's and Eula's to be deliberately misleading and vague?

All that to say I trust a CEO to keep promises as much as I trust a politician to. Hey, it's the world we live in.

Nope, you have to explicity enable Location Services when you're initially setting up your phone. On top of that, you don't get Google Now stuff unless you pick the "I'm In" button from the Google Search app. That's hardly "Opt-Out".

Could it be set up differently in Canada? Or perhaps the provider has that set up? Or an update perhaps. I just started getting messages telling me how far I was from home (which was weird because they guessed my home was my gf's). Google maps was pre-installed and located me from the get-go. I then turned off location services. On an aside I find my phone changes random things on me occasionally such as ring-tone and keyboard settings.

I do not recall seeing an "I'm In" button (I have a Samsung Galaxy S3).

And don't you find a lot of these ToC's and Eula's to be deliberately misleading and vague?

All that to say I trust a CEO to keep promises as much as I trust a politician to. Hey, it's the world we live in.

I and others assumed by what you posted that what you saw was Google Now. Obviously on Android phones Google maps is preinstalled and can, you know, find you per its usual operation.

If it isn't Google Now, you have something else non google doing that stuff to you. Heck, a new Sprint GS4 has three different app stores on it, ridiculous.

I think it is Google Now but I do not recall ever saying I'm In. It just started telling me how far away I was from stuff and football scores randomly. But that being said I don't see a Google Now in my application manager, although perhaps it is part of Google Play Services? Or Hangouts, I have to look that up, no idea what that is.

I'll turn location services back on and wait for a friendly message telling me something I already know. Reminds me of the message centre in Windows XP telling me I unplugged a jack.

But to me this suggests an underlying problem. They bundle a bunch of crap onto a phone and you need to be techno-lawyer (lawyer who likes 90's dance music) to catch it all.

I think it is Google Now but I do not recall ever saying I'm In. It just started telling me how far away I was from stuff and football scores randomly. But that being said I don't see a Google Now in my application manager, although perhaps it is part of Google Play Services? Or Hangouts, I have to look that up, no idea what that is.

I'll turn location services back on and wait for a friendly message telling me something I already know. Reminds me of the message centre in Windows XP telling me I unplugged a jack.

But to me this suggests an underlying problem. They bundle a bunch of crap onto a phone and you need to be techno-lawyer (lawyer who likes 90's dance music) to catch it all.

It's part of "Google Search" in you application manager. I can't speak for what your particular phone did on setup, buy my Verizon Moto phone (fresh in my mind, since I did a factory reset last week...) took a good 10 intentional steps from a clean boot to getting Google Now up and generated interest-based cards.

It's possible some of this is bypassed/different using a different phone and provider. It's also possible that someone else stepped through some of those without your direct knowledge.

wow downvoted into oblivion because I don't agree that Google is the downfall of our society... interesting that this is how the forum works. Mob mentality in the comments run other opinions out of town.

I work for a consulting firm and most of our clients are in the advertising industry. I strongly encourage most of you to read up on PII (personally identifiable information) and try and understand how this data is used, and how the advertising industry supports many many technologies (many of them FREE(gmail, google+, google drive)and services (like the website on which you're reading this article, for starters). Ask yourself if you're willing to pay for any of these services on a purchase or subscription basis? Many of us will say yes. Ask yourself if you're willing to pay for ALL of them? Most of us will say no way in hell. Now ask yourself if someone was going to take a survey of the total number of people who visited a website, and gather any general information they could about a population of people, and then give you BEST QUALITYservices and technology for free in exchange. Everyone on reading on this site who has a gmail account has ALREADY said yes.

Thanks, I'll look into it. All those things (Google Play Books, Games, Movies, Music, Newsstand, Services, Store, Search, Text-to-Speech and + as well as a few others like Hangouts and ChatOn) were definitely on when I got the phone from my provider. Perhaps the laws are different in Canada or the provider took steps to bundle these.

And on top of that I would be willing to bet that 99% of the public are not aware that they are selling their location to the highest bidder when they agree to use "Google Search". That is not a logical deduction. When the layman thinks of Google Search they are probably assuming that Google is profiting off of the advertisers paying to be found in the searches.

i think i'm more interested in living in a drafty log cabin with a fireplace than connecting and managing the information flow from devices. from a hobbyist standpoint, i get the appeal, but not the 3.2 billion dollar appeal.

Thanks, I'll look into it. All those things (Google Play Books, Games, Movies, Music, Newsstand, Services, Store, Search, Text-to-Speech and + as well as a few others like Hangouts and ChatOn) were definitely on when I got the phone from my provider. Perhaps the laws are different in Canada or the provider took steps to bundle these.

And on top of that I would be willing to bet that 99% of the public are not aware that they are selling their location to the highest bidder when they agree to use "Google Search". That is not a logical deduction. When the layman thinks of Google Search they are probably assuming that Google is profiting off of the advertisers paying to be found in the searches.

That's the whole point of privacy policies and EULAs. You're right that most people don't bother reading them, but if you're concerned about your privacy, you should take the time to do so.

I have three questions: Since you're promising that future changes from the current policy will be "opt-in," how good is the current policy?

Are these promises contained in a legally binding and enforceable agreement, or are they just offhand remarks to an interviewer at a conference (and therefore pretty much meaningless)?

And, why would anyone buy a $250 thermostat (5x the cost of a decent one from Home Depot) knowing that while the current privacy situation might be acceptable, it's manufactured and designed by a division of one of the biggest privacy abusers in the history of mankind?

Even if it is opt-in, Google is always heavy-handed is this approach. Try to use Gmail or YouTube without being badgered to sign up for Google+, how many times do you need to say no thanks? I have IE9 at work and on Google sites, I constantly get pestered by the warning that "Your browser is out of date, you should update it or *bold link* install Chrome". If I can dismiss the message should a cookie be able to indicate that I've already made a decision here. Finally, the new change to cache images in email - I think it's a valid idea but the message that I got was (paraphase): 'You are in great danger because email spammers want to monitor you, be safe and let Google retrieve that email for you' and of course it's not a simple "Yes/No", it's if you want to say No then you'll need to go to the options tab and figure out yourself how to put things back to the way they were. This kind of stuff just ticks me off.

So to start, yes it's opt-in but how long until something like a remote check-in prompts you with a question that will make it so clear that giving Google access to your equipment data is only the prudent and responsible thing to do.

In terms of price, don't expect the $250 price tag to stick around. If the Nexus line or Motorola Moto G are any indication, they'll probably be practically giving this thing away in the coming months. Or perhaps, it will be $250 for the opt-out model and $49 for the opt-in version?

Even if it is opt-in, Google is always heavy-handed is this approach. Try to use Gmail or YouTube without being badgered to sign up for Google+, how many times do you need to say no thanks?

It goes beyond that. I am pretty sure with cookies turned on Google signs you back in. Only in Chrome? Not sure, but I have signed out and then find myself signed back in numerous times. They have realized that security is less important than the data garnered from having you signed in.

Reminds me of Facebook, when you try and switch the "sort" function to most recent it always switches you back to "Top Stories". Why? For better ad placement.

Even if it is opt-in, Google is always heavy-handed is this approach. Try to use Gmail or YouTube without being badgered to sign up for Google+, how many times do you need to say no thanks?

It goes beyond that. I am pretty sure with cookies turned on Google signs you back in. Only in Chrome? Not sure, but I have signed out and then find myself signed back in numerous times. They have realized that security is less important than the data garnered from having you signed in.

Reminds me of Facebook, when you try and switch the "sort" function to most recent it always switches you back to "Top Stories". Why? For better ad placement.

On the desktop or android? Cause, if you are signed in with a google account on your phone, why would it matter if you were on the browser?

On the desktop or android? Cause, if you are signed in with a google account on your phone, why would it matter if you were on the browser?

Are you referring to Google or the Facebook reference? I was referring to the browser my last post, using them as examples of odd behaviours which go beyond opt-in/out and even sign me back in or in Facebook's case switch my preference back to what they prefer. Try it out. If you are on Facebook switch the sort function to most recent instead of top stories. In a few days it will be back to Top Stories. This discussion on opting in or out and Google Services sending me creepy messages reminded me of these 2 examples in that they are now behaving not as I intended or wanted but as Google or Facebook wants them to.

Google often buys companies with the main purpose being to acquire the talent as much, if not more, than their product.If Nest is a near perfect product, as several posters have implied by saying there is no way it could be improved, this seems like a pretty reasonable reason to acquire the company.

Maybe, but it seems a bit weird that the CEO is saying that Google won't do what Google does. That being using acquired information to add to their database on information about people. Nest only really lines up with their normal business in that it collects data about the user and adjusts accordingly. It's not a stretch to think that they'd want this data for some purpose, and that they'll take advantage of it somehow. It's true that we have no idea what they'll use it for, but selling thermostats doesn't really seem like a business Google would get into just on selling a thermostat. The robotics purchase makes sense because they do mapping, it could lead to a self driving car that already has a massive maps database. But purchasing a company that changes the setting on a heating and cooling system doesn't really make sense unless they want that data to compare with data they already have for some unknown purpose, or they want to own the system that they designed to do so and use it for their own purposes. Either way it's really strange that the CEO would stress that Google absolutely won't do what Google always does, collect information that is specific to the end user.

Did it occur to you that maybe Google wants in on home automation to go along with its Fiber networks and Google Green initiatives? My security system and thermostat are controlled through the TimeWarner Intelligent Home service I have, why does it seem so asinine for Google to also invest into home automation to tie in with products and services it currently offers?

You've just proven my point. Google WILL use this data to tie into everything else they have. Tony Fadell says they won't. Google doesn't buy things and then not use them in conjunction with what they already have. The issue is that Nest owners didn't want Google to have their info, they have it anyway, and now the CEO is saying their info won't be used with the rest of Google. You're saying it will be, and I'm saying the CEO is speaking bullshit.

You're being completely disingenuous here. The whole, entire discussion has been that Google will rapidly incorporate this theoretical wealth of personal data available from Nest and start using that to further target ads. Leachpunk says that it might be a strategic plan to integrate Nest -- hardware and software -- into other, non-advertising projects that Google's involved in -- Google Fiber and Google Green. You respond with 1) "Leachpunk isn't answering my question" and 2) See! I'm right! Integrating the Nest hardware and software into Google Green or Google Fiber (or autonomous cars, or server farm environment controls, etc.) is exactly what we're talking about!

Only it isn't. You moved the goalposts when someone posited something other than what you wanted to argue about.

Wow... thanks! You understood the argument, I only wish onerunjunior would have, then we could have progressed in our discussion much better!